Education Secretary Arne Duncan took a couple of field trips to Maryland last week.

During his first outing, to the University of Maryland–Baltimore County campus, he delivered a speech outlining the Department of Education’s plan for remediating what has become higher education’s damaged value proposition. On his second visit, to the Maryland Correctional Institution in Jessup, he and Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the Obama Administration’s plan to launch a limited pilot program under which Pell Grants would be available to federal and state prisoners.

However, as is often the case that involves the highly charged debate on higher ed, what was left unsaid speaks volumes.

Secretary Duncan covered a lot of ground in his UM-BC address. He talked about his belief that “every hard-working student in this country must have a real opportunity to achieve a meaningful, affordable degree.” To help realize that goal, he wants to hold colleges and universities accountable for their academic outcomes—the extent to which students successfully complete their degrees within six years, given that nearly half of all college students fail to do so within that time.

He may have been referring to students whose applications are approved even though they aren’t “college ready” (according to a recent survey by Acheive, just 14% of college instructors stated that today’s high school graduates are adequately prepared for “what came next”), those who would be better served by vocational schools (the secretary makes no mention of these or investing in apprenticeship programs, for that matter), or whose financial circumstances are so tenuous that they are at heightened risk of dropping out for that reason alone (even though the government’s easy-money loan programs may exacerbate that situation). Nor did he spell out what “accountable” means in real dollars and cents.

Further on in the speech, Duncan talked about degrees that fall short of helping students develop financially sustaining livelihoods. There too, he didn’t mention how the ED gave up on what is arguably the most telling indicator of that failure: the cohort default rate (CDR).

The CDR tracks the payment performances of groups (“cohort”) of students whose education loans enter repayment mode (because the borrower has graduated from or left school) at the same time (the “cohort year”). Several months ago, the department decided to abandon this measure and instead take a debt-to-income approach to determine institutional culpability in this regard. Although high debt-to-income ratios may well indicate the potential for a borrower to experience financial distress, a failure to pay (i.e. default) is what’s at issue.

It also happens to be what the CDR was designed to assess.

Then there is the matter of cost, which the secretary correctly noted has more than doubled during the past 30 years (after adjusting for inflation), as has the average level of student-loan debt. But, he warned, “If we limit the discussion to cost and debt, we will have failed.”

Get Your Free Credit Score & Monitoring

Perhaps that’s because he did not acknowledge the enabling role the federal government has played by making available as much money as the schools can spend and which more than half of all student borrowers are unable to repay without some form of relief.

During their trip to Jessup, the secretary and the AG announced the Obama administration’s plan for expanding the Pell Grant program to benefit incarcerated Americans. As you might expect, that idea is already attracting politically motivated opposition. This despite the fact that some studies indicate educated prisoners are less likely to return to jail—which ends up saving the system more than it costs to provide that education in the first place.

What’s left unsaid, however, is that when all the money the federal government spends each year on higher education is taken into account, there is more than enough to cover the average cost of tuition for every student enrolled in a public institution (if they are attending these as in-state residents).

Finally, at neither stop did Secretary Duncan talk about addressing his department’s poor stewardship of the more than $1 trillion worth of loans that reside on the ED’s balance sheet, and on those of private-sector lenders and investors (specifically, Federal Family Education Loan program contracts).

Were it not for its exemption from regulatory oversight (that of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in this instance) and from laws intended to protect consumer-borrowers from mistreatment (such as those that pertain to the collection of past-due loan payments), the secretary would have had even more to talk about.

If only he would.

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily represent the views of the company or its partners.

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

The offers that appear on Credit.com’s website are from companies from which Credit.com receives compensation. This compensation may influence the selection, appearance, and order of appearance of the offers listed on the website. However, this compensation also facilitates the provision by Credit.com of certain services to you at no charge. The website does not include all financial services companies or all of their available product and service offerings.

Editorial content is not provided by any issuer. Any opinions, analyses, reviews, or recommendations expressed here are those of the author's alone, and have not been reviewed, approved, or otherwise endorsed by any issuer.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.